New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 11.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4491, 11 August 1875, Page 2

New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 11.

Last night’s debate, on the Abolition of Provinces Bill, was to a certain extent disappointing. Not the speaking, however, which was above the average in some respects, but the question was not treated ion broad principles of policy. As a (rhetorical effort, Sir George Geey’s speech was a finished performance, but when he sat down it was evident he had failed to make any sensible impression on the House. And the speeches of Sir Donald McLean and Dir. Reader Wood appeared to us to leave things pretty much as they were when they began. “It is a great occasion,” these gentlemen said, but with the exception of Sir George, no one manifested the least bit of enthusiasm. Now, how is this ? Is it because members think the abolition of Provincial Government is a wise and politic measure ; or is it because the people have set their minds on carrying it into effect, and that they think it is a waste of energy to attempt to run counter to the popular will ? Whatever the cause may be, the fact is but too palpable to be overlooked. It is siguifi - cant of a speedy consummation, when the debate flags so wearily on the very first night. Of all the speakers last night, Mr. Thomson appeared to us to make the most palpable hit, when he taunted Ministers with assuming office to conserve provincial institutions, and then turning round and adopting the policy of the Stafford Government, which they displaced. In Mr. Thomson’s opinion, the duty of Ministers was plain : they should have resigned, and advised the Governor to send for Mr. Stafford to form a Government. The Abolition of Provinces Bill should have been introduced by that gentleman, he thought. This was a decided hit; but Mr. Thomson is clearly an unsophisticated politician, and in time he may come to think the coarse pursued by Ministers of going with the tide of popular feeling, by no means an imprudent or reprehensible one.

Reverting to Sir George Grey’s speech, we failed to gather from it any alternative He would not abolish provincial institutions, but would modify them to suit the circumstances of the country. His review of the constitutional history of the country was very interesting, and Jjis, tribute to the energy and^ success of was deserved ; but as the Native Minister said, that is not the question now. Sir George no doubt laid his finger upon more than one blot, but he forgets that the only direct way of removing these from our political system is to remove the constitutional fence which provincial institutions undoubtedly are, and bring the Colonial Government face to face with the people. No doubt it might have been,better if, instead of offering large subsidies to local bodies, the Government had submitted a financial scheme changing the incidence of taxation, and removing some of the duties on the necessaries of life. But the Government elected to tack their Bill for constitutional changes to the existing tariff, and this being so, it would be premature to debate the general question of taxation, or at all events, to press for a reduction in taxation, with the view of impeding the Government policy. If we understood Sir George aright, direct taxation and abatement of the Customs duties form part of his programme ; also, that he means to press for a reform in the land administration, for the purpose of putting an end to land monopoly. When the proper time comes to agitate these questions, which is at the hustings, we shall be ready to offer a decided opinion. Meanwhile, we need not stop to consider them now. We are in accord with the hon. gentleman also in thinking that Parliamentary Government, in the true sense of the term, does not exist ; but there is an allsufficient reason for this. The people, as a whole, have not been represented in the General Assembly. It has been composed of provincial sections, which subordinated colonial to provincial interests, and a system of sham Ministerial responsibility was the necessary and inevitable outcome of their continual intrigues. But the Abolition of Provinces Bill, while it strengthens the hands of Ministers, and enormously increases their patronage, possesses the germ of genuine political life, which shall yet purify our political system, and accomplish that for which Sir George so eloquently contends. The method may not meet with his approval, but it will be effectual nevertheless.

Mr. Reader Wood, on the other hand, saw nothing good in the provincial system, nor in the Abolition of Provinces Bill. They are both repulsive in his sight. Well and good ; these positions are not necessarily contradictory. If he had stopped there, and not “rendered a “ reason,” we should have taken no exception to what ho said. But his reason was insufficient. Provincial boundaries are preserved, and provincial laws are left to their operation. This is his main objection to the Bill. But as we showed in a former article, these are merits rather than demerits. Does the member for Parnell wish to create confusion throughout the colony 1 If so, he would attempt, by a single enactment, to destroy the machinery of local government and abrogate local laws, trusting to the chapter of accidents and the intelligence of the people to bring matters right at last. Wo are great believers in the intelligence of the people, but we are not devotees of chance. It is a most unreliable factor in active politics. The Government leave nothing to chance. They destroy the political power and influence of the provincial system, but continue the provincial administration until they can grapple with the details and effect necessary reforms. This is a wise course to pursue, and instead of receiving censure for it, they deserve praise. And we have that confidence in the patriotism of the Superintendents and Provincial Secretaries, that we believe they will volunteer their services to the Government, in the event of the Bill passing, to ensure the necessary control.

And this brings us to the financial part of Mr. Reader Wood’s speech, in which he endeavored to prove that the public accounts were so stated in the Budget as to cover a large deficit. We regret that our space does not enable us to report him fully, because we differ from him in his conclusions. Mr. Wood’s figures would lead to the conclusion that instead of a surplus there was a large deficit, which was to be covered by absorbing the Middle Island land fund. We really cannot see it with Mr. Woods eyes, and we have devoted some time to a consideration of the Financial Statement. What he said about setting aside a railway depreciation fund is a very old-fashioned idea, and lie will find, on further inquiry, that the Government have not overlooked the matter. The following is his statement of the disposition of the land revenue : Total estimated Land Revenue .. £702,000 Two-thirds of above, equal to .. 408,000 Charges—Contributions for Interest .. £245,800 Cost of Surveys 24,776 Payments to Road Boards.. .. 33,333 Public Works Department .. 262,178 Educational purposes .. .. 12,000 £578,127 Land Fund 468,000 Deficiency .. .. £110,127 Add Loan 100,000 Dr, balance £10,127 Balance to be divided in two equal parts by Act; and on one half for Provincial AVorks, it is proposed to charge ~ .. £1,008,168 2s. 2d. It is quite evident that Mr. "Wood does not understand the financial proposals in the Bill. The amount stated as contingent expenditure on public works in the provinces will not be actually spent unless the revenue accrues. It is there simply because it appears in the various appropriation Acts of the provinces, and as a contingent liability it undoubtedly should be shown. But the Government will not sacrifice the public estate to give effect to reckless appropriations in anticipation of revenue. Instead of the Government being open to the charge of laying hands upon the Southern land fund, they are bent upon conserving it. We regret that we should differ so widely on this point from Mr. Reader Wood, but we think that on consideration lie will admit his error.